Project on :

Using the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge Framework to Stimulate Science and Mathematics Teachers in Integrating ICT Tools into Teaching at  a Primary School: Ethiopia

Reflection on the final Project: Lesson Planning Based on TPCK framework

This is my reflection on the final project of the course “ Pedagogies for flexible learning supported by tec (2010) (2010_19197037)”. The final project had had two components: the design of a lesson and the design professional development based on the TPACK framework. Hence, a group has a possibility to chose among these topics (flexibility). The group I belong to have done on the first topic. Hence, this reflection is all about the process of doing this assignment in the last couples of weeks. I have organized my reflection into six different days. This days are the days in which the group meet to do the assignment in addition to the home take assignment. The reflection describes the process of the situation and give final conclusion in each day.

Day 1:  October 27, 2010 ( Cubicus at 16:00hrs)

In the first day of the meeting, the issue was in selecting the  topic between the given alternatives. Two members of the group has an interest to do on professional development and one member of the group has interest on lesson designing. In the other hand, one member of the group has no preference. There was debate to come up to consensus to one topic (how challenging to do in groups with different interests). The debate lasts for about two hours and finally come up with consensus to do on professional development based on TPCK framework. On this day the following decision were also made

·         The context was determined (Ethiopian primary schools)

·         The subject was also determined (The topic about earthquake)

Then home take assignment was given to read and prepare on the issue for the next meeting of October 29, 2010 at Vrijhof

It was interesting to me that we have discussed a lot in selecting the assignment, there were arguments to reside in one direction. We have shared experiences while arguing on the issues.

Day 2:  October 29, 2010, (Vrijhof at 15:00)

On this day something happened unexpectedly. Three of the group members come with a different ideas about the assignment, however, one of the group member come with a preparation with the home take assignment. The three members of the groups come with a thesis that we have to change our project from professional development to lesson designing. There were arguments for this shift. It took a lot of times for the group again to come to consensus. Finally with the principle of the vote for the mass (paradox to democracy) we came to the decision to do our project on lesson designing based on TPCK framework. On this day there was task division hence we have divided tasks. Since there was a preliminary context analysis, it helps us to decide the technology to be used and the content to be taught.

·         The content selected was about earthquake

·         The technology selected was not clearly defined, sometimes we said Wikipedia, YouTube and Encarta premium 2008.

As a result, the group decided that there should be  a clear context and content and technology to progress.

It was surprising on this day that it faced us a great challenge to fit with the content with the technology and  the context selected. This day gave to me a great lesson how it is difficult to fit technology with content and how context challenges to select appropriate technology. Moreover, since the context selected is not that much rich with modern technologies it was challenging for the group to selected the available technology and fit with the existing content.

Day 3:  November 03. 2010  ( Cubicus  at 15:00)

On this day everybody did come with a certain preliminary results on the given tasks. However, the following mismatches were happened. The first for front mismatch was the technology selected and the context did not go inline. The technology selected demanded high internet connection, however, the context has no such fast internet connection. Therefore, we came to search the available technology and which suits the context, and content. As a result Encarta premium 2008 was selected as a means for technology to teach grade seven environment science subject about earthquake. On this day, we read the manuscripts of each of the group members tasks. As a result, we came with a certain draft document which demands further improvement.

On this day, it was good experience that context binds/influences in selecting appropriate technology for a given content. It was also a good lesson that TPCK helps in using the available technology in teaching a certain content.

Day 4:  November 10, 2010 (  Vrijhof  at 14:00)

The draft task was analyzed critically. As a result the lesson designing process come up with the structures of containing four different components namely, TPACK framework, design model, analysis of context and actual design of the lesson. Each of the components were described in this meeting. Especially I was happy that we have created our own design process model combining Dick and Carey design model and TPCK framework. It was the very important of our work. After preparing our design model it becomes very easy to proceed straight forward.

In this day, we also tried to go through Encarta Premium 2008, however, it was a challenge to find it easily. Finally we were able to be successful in finding the Encarta software. We found that it is a good source for students specially in places where there is no internet connection.

It was interesting in this day that framing one’s work through a certain model helps to organize a certain task easily. Moreover, it was interesting that I have got interesting experience that TPCK  framework and Dick and Carey model combined helps to design a lesson plan based on TPCK framework. It helps us to prepare our lesson planning process.

Day 5:  November 12, 2010 (Vrijhof at 14:00)

The whole document was read by each members of the group. There was good sharing of experiences in dealing with wrong/mismatched statement and argument in the document.

In this day everything was finalized and combined together. As a result we come up with a certain document which clearly shows how to prepare a lesson plan based on TPCK framework.

It was interesting that TPCK helps to design a lesson plan which helps in teaching a certain content with the available technology

Day 6:  November 15, 2010 (Vrijhof at 10:00 )

In this day the group finalized the whole job on the document. In addition, we tried to prepare the slide for the presentation. The whole document was about 20 pages, hence, to prepare a slide of 10 -12 slide we have to read the whole document. Finally we come up with a 12 slide presentation. The slides contains introduction, design model, context (curriculum, grade level, curriculum, school, and content) and actual design process (before, during and after).

This day helps the group to recapitulate what we have done since the beginning of the project.

Day 7: November 17, 2010 (Cubicus at 12:30)

On this day we finalized and organized the slide for the presentation.

Generally, the final project helps me to share experiences with persons from different country and background. Each day has its own implication for me and had had value while doing in groups. Moreover, I came to understand that TPCK helps a lot in integrating technology in the classroom. Especially, I found interesting that TPCK concept helps to dig out the available resources in a certain context to use/integrate in the teaching learning process.

Reflection on Fifth Lecture

The fifth lecture was good which helps me to  understand how implementation is challenging.  During this session we have seen that  implementation models have a lot of contributions in integrating technology in the teaching/learning process. These models shows that the scaling up of implementation shall better follow piloting. The implementation of technology is also highly affected with the context on which the technology could be implemented. However, new technology integration in the teaching learning process is not as simple as we think. It is affected by different factors and vary depending on the context. When the factors were mentioned in the classroom during the fifth lecture, I was thinking of my context (Ethiopian schools), the factors are more complex than mentioned in our discussion in the classroom. For example, the top critical concern for teachers in Ethiopian context in using technology in education is the resource. It is very challenging to find resources in most schools. It is common in using technology in universities of Ethiopia however, not that much significant. I have conducted a simple research in a university about the practice of teachers in using technology in their teaching. I found that the most critical problem which inhabits teachers in using technology is the availability of resources. Teachers dominantly use technology (specially computers) for their routine purposes (writing, email etc) rather than systematically integrate technology in their teaching. Even though teachers have access for technology in some extent (like computers), it is difficult for students to get access for these technologies. Even I can say that the issue of the impact of technology on student achievement is immature. The issue is not as the extent as what I have seen here in Netherlands. More emphasis is given in building schools and expanding access for education. There are some efforts actually to integrate technology in schools with the initiation of the government and some organization (one project one laptop per a child) though the issue is in its young stage. watch please the effort of this project.

Therefore, the challenges of teachers in using technology in my context are i) the availability of resources ii) the use of technology in teaching even immature. All indicates that there are a lot of research areas that can be done in Ethiopia.

Introduction:

In this post I will try to write my reflections onTPACK framework taking a specific example (taking a particular content, technology and pedagogical approach from mathematics lesson). In addition, I will try to explain how flexibility, technology, and pedagogical approaches leads to the issue of TPCK and its added value .The two issues will be treated in the separate posts.

1.      Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPCK): Reflection

 The concept of technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPCK) was a new thought for me when I came to the Netherlands. I am interested with the concept. I have discussed  the issue in my country with colloquies as intermingled way not as structured form as TPCK.

TPCK is the combination of the three components of knowledge (Technological, Pedagogical and content) on which each of them reinforce each other to get the advantage of technology in using it in the teaching/learning process. A teacher should have content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge to use technology in the classroom effectively. Moreover, the separate knowledge of content, pedagogical, and technological will add up nothing in the classroom unless an educator tried to have pooled knowledge of TPCK. While we are talking about TPCK model, it is also important to notice also that the context is very important. It includes the availability of resources, nature of the learners (learning style, background etc), the teachers background, belief of education system etc. All these has to be taken into consideration during planning the concept of TPCK. The cross combination of the three components (Technological, Pedagogical and content knowledge) will result in some other four different combinations including TPCK. These are technological pedagogical, technological content, pedagogical content and finally technological pedagogical content knowledge. Let me define each of them as follows:

Content knowledge is a knowledge about the actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught. Pedagogical knowledge is the teachers well though knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning. It could include overall educational purposes, values, aims, and principles of a certain subject domain.

Technology knowledge is understanding the influence of information technology on education while using in the classroom.

Pedagogical content knowledge  is the knowledge of the teacher where real learning could be happened. It includes the implementation of the curriculum, students assessment and evaluation.

Technological content knowledge is an understanding of the teacher that technology and content influence each other for real happening of learning. It is the teachers belief that the content of a certain discipline can be changed by the application of technology.

Technological pedagogical knowledge is understanding of how teaching and learning changes when particular technologies are used. It demands teachers creativity to use the available resource rather than fixing on a particular technology.

Technological pedagogical content Knowledge is the basis of effective teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the concepts using technologies, pedagogical approaches that use technologies in systematic ways to teach content.

However, the teacher will benefit more when the three combined together in effective ways. In this case the bare sum of each components doesn’t  result learning, rather the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of each parts hold true for real learning.

It could be very clear if we consider a particular example: Let me begin taking a particular topic from mathematics since technology is an essential tool for learning mathematics in the 21st century. Calculators and other technological tools, such as computer algebra systems, interactive geometry software, spreadsheets, and interactive presentation devices, are vital components of a high-quality mathematics education. With guidance from effective mathematics teachers, students at different levels can use these tools to support and extend mathematical reasoning and sense making, gain access to mathematical content and problem-solving contexts, and enhance computational fluency. In a well-articulated mathematics program, students can use these tools for computation, construction, and representation as they explore problems.

Suppose we have the following mathematics content  at grade one of Ethiopian schools:

·         Context: Ethiopian grade one students , where few facilities are available. The teacher has to use the available resource with its context. It could be good if he is able to use computers but computers may not be available in the school.

·         Content: Multiplication of numbers between 0 -100

·         Pedagogy: Inquiry learning

·         Technology: Simple calculator

Based on the above given data it is possible to explain what is expected from the teacher regarding content, pedagogical, technological, technological pedagogical, technological content, pedagogical content and finally technological pedagogical content knowledge to effectively integrate the calculator in students learning as follows:

i)                     Content knowledge (CK) : the teacher has to know the concepts, theories and principles of multiplication which is pertinent to the given grade level.

ii)                  Pedagogical knowledge (PK): The teacher’s skill and ability how to teach this topic , mange the students, plan lessons etc during the lesson.  In this case the teacher may decide to follow up students not to use the calculator unless they are to do so.

iii)                Technological Knowledge (TK). It is the teachers knowledge of the certain technology. In this case the teacher should have the knowledge of how to operate the calculator to perform multiplication.

iv)                Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK): It the knowledge of the teacher how inquiry learning works with simple calculator. One approach the teacher could  think of is  to require from the  students to figure out their own answers before checking their work on a calculator.

v)                  Technological content knowledge (TCK). It is the knowledge of the teacher in fitting  the calculator to works to teach grade one students about multiplication. The teacher my select questions (topics) which are compatible with the calculator. The calculator for example may not be compatible to multiply numbers with number like 3.1X2.3, hence the teacher should be aware of excluding such numbers

vi)                Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). It is the ability of the teacher how the content multiplication fitted with inquiry learning approach to achieve maximum learning by students.

vii)              Technological, Pedagogical, content knowledge: It is the pooled knowledge of the teacher in presenting the content multiplication using calculator through inquiry method of teaching. It is more than the sum of the three components. The whole concept of TPCK is greater than the sum of its components. It is the  knowledge of the teacher how the three components (the calculator, inquiry learning and the concept multiplication) combined together to maximize learning.
It is also possible to explain the particular example by using the model of TPACK as follows

 Fig: A particular example which exemplify TPCK framework

2.      Flexibility, Technology, and Pedagogical Approaches Leads to the Issue of TPCK

In this post I will try to show how the previous lessons (flexibility, pedagogical approaches, technology and the issue of content) lead to the new framework TPCK. In addition I will try to mention some added values of TPCK in brief.

As I have explained in the last post (posted on my blogs on October 10, 2010), I  have gone through on a lot of articles and had have lectures on flexibility, pedagogical approach and the use of technology to be more flexible as well as to blend technology in pedagogical approaches. I have also explained using literatures that the learners diversified interest of learning call for the emergence of flexibility. Hence, there must be more flexibility to meet the needs of the learner, through adaptability to different learner needs, learning patterns and settings, and media combinations (Van den Brande, 1993, in Collis & Moonen (2001).  One can be flexible in different areas in his teaching beyond distance learning. The general flexibility areas in teaching are; flexibility in time like finishing and starting a course, flexibility in content (like content sequencing), flexibility in entry requirements, flexibility in  instructional approach and resources and flexibility in delivery and logistics. Among the flexibility options pedagogical flexibility is the very important aspect of teaching. There are lots of methods of pedagogical approach teachers can use in their teaching/learning process. However, using the pedagogical approaches in “traditional way” are not seem no more accepted now a days due to the emergence of technologies. As a result, technologies are becoming the crucial component in implementing these pedagogical approach in flexible way and beyond traditional approach There is a high demand from students to use technology in education for reshaping of teaching and pedagogical approach.  Hence, I have gained a better understanding in the last sections how pedagogical approaches (like problem based learning, collaborative learning, project based learning etc) are blended with technology to make my teaching more flexible and gear learners interests. I can see that there are two critical issues that one has to know in last sections of discussions: Pedagogy, and Technology to be taught. Therefore, there is a need from the teacher be aware of these components. The fourth lesson comes with the concept of content which result in with the emergence of new concept called TPCK which answers the question how flexibility and learning will be maximized via technology.

As I have explained above, in the last couples of lesson (lesson 1, 2, and 3) the concept of technology, pedagogy and how technology and pedagogy combined together for effective learning (CMS) were treated in a good manner, in addition, one can see clearly that these lesson were a prerequisites for the emergence of new concept called TPCK. The concept TPCK come to emerge immediately at the fourth lesson when the teacher introduces the concept of content. The TPCK framework come with a new concept of how can teachers integrate technology into their teaching and aapproaches  needed that treats teaching as an interaction between what teachers know, and how they apply what they know in the unique circumstances or contexts within their classrooms. The TPCK framework also give tips that there is no “one best way” to integrate technology into curriculum. Rather, integration efforts should be creatively designed or structured for particular subject matter ideas in specific classroom contexts.

2.1. Added values of TPCK

As it is mentioned above, TPCK is a framework for teachers knowledge  for technology integration in teaching/learning process. The development of TPCK is critical to effective teaching with technology (Koehler and Mishra, 2008). Hence, there is a demand to know more about TPCK to manage courses in using technology for teachers. These knowledge is not the separate knowledge rather whole understanding of TPCK. The TPCK framework can effectively be used to determine the content of courses such as instructional technologies for a particular subject teaching for teachers and of workshops for teacher training programs in attempts to achieve a successful integration of technology into instruction. Moreover, the TPCK model could add values in the diagnose of  teachers’ difficulties with integration of technology into instruction and areas which seek for professional development for a successful integration. In line with this Kenny (2002) in Angeli and Valanides (2008)  stated that the lack of a subject specific focus in many technology programs remains an issue, but even in those cases where subject applications are discussed, matters of how technology interacts with the content and content-specific pedagogy are not sufficiently explored. As a result, teachers cannot effectively think how to link technology with the teaching of a particular content domain, but the emergence of TPCK come with solution for the such problem.

In general TPCK has added values in different aspect for successful integration of technology in the classroom. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) has emerged as a useful framework for describing and understanding the goals for technology use in the classroom. Moreover, it is useful to analyze teachers gap in using technology in the classroom and based on the analysis it becomes possible to upgrade teachers gap through professional development.

References

Angeli C. and Valanides  N. (2008). TPCK in Pre-service Teacher Education: Preparing Primary Education Students to Teach with Technology. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association March,  24-28, 2008,  University of Cyprus , New York City. Reterieved on October 16, 2010 at http://punya.educ.msu.edu/presentations/AERA2008/AngeliValanides_AERA2008.pdf

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001, second printing 2002). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In: AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.) Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. (pp. 3 - 29). New York: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and Routledge.

 Pedagogical flexibility via Technology: Reflection

In the last couples of weeks we have read articles and had have lectures on flexibility, pedagogical approach and the use of technology to be more flexible as well as to blend technology in pedagogical approaches. I have got a lot of experiences and reviewed literatures on flexibility. I had had a preconception that flexibility is related with distance learning however, after reading different articles and the lecture given by my teacher, I came to understand that  there are different issues that one can be flexible in the teaching learning process beyond distance learning. The following are flexibility areas in teaching; flexibility in time like finishing and starting a course, flexibility in content (like content sequencing), flexibility in entry requirements, flexibility in  instructional approach and resources and flexibility in delivery and logistics. Among the flexibility options pedagogical flexibility is the very important one. Pedagogical approach is the knowledge and skills that practitioners of the profession of teaching employ in performing their duties of facilitating desired learning in others. There are lots of methods of pedagogical approach teachers can use in their teaching/learning process. However, using the pedagogical approaches in “traditional way” are not seem no more accepted. Technology is becoming the crucial component in implementing these pedagogical approach in flexible way and beyond traditional approach since pedagogical approaches are not technology driven. There is a high demand from students to introduce technology in education for reshaping of teaching and pedagogical approach.

Hence, I have gained a better understanding in the last sections how pedagogical approaches (like problem based learning, collaborative learning, project based learning etc) are blended with technology to make my teaching more flexible and gear learners interests. I can see that there are three critical issues that one has know in last sections discussion: Pedagogy, Technology, and the content to be taught. Therefore, there is a need from the teacher be aware of these components.

I thought the following video is a good example how one could be flexible in his pedagogical approach using technology. Universal design for learning (UDL) Part - one and Part - two

 

I like the videos really, it helps to understand how technology address different types of learners (the technology helps special needs students).

Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPCK)

                          

I have read one article on TPACK which given by Amber and watch 12 minute movie program on TV (which I liked very much). Please watch the TV program it is enthusiastic!. The TV program talks about TPCK, however, beyond that the system of the presentation (multimedia: picture, movie and sound) shows how technology uses to manage your presentation.

                               

TPACK Radio/Video Show ISTE 2010 from Punya Mishra on Vimeo.

The article also talk about the definition of TPCK and its sub components (Content Knowledge, Pedagogical knowledge, Pedagogical content knowledge, Technology knowledge, Technological content Knowledge and finally Technological Pedagogical knowledge). The application of knowledge in teaching involves many different conceptual structures and perspectives that play out in novel and unique ways even in instances that may seem superficially similar. The push to integrate technology in teaching further complicates matters by bringing an additional domains of knowledge (technological knowledge) into the mix (Koehler, and  Mishra, 2008) . Development of teachers on technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPCK). TPCK is a frame work for teachers knowledge  for technology integration in teaching/learning process. The development of TPCK is critical to effective teaching with technology (Koehler and Mishra, 2008). Hence, there is a demand to know more about TPCK to manage your course using technology.

References

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In: AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.) Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. (pp. 3 - 29). New York: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and Routledge. Available at http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/koehler_mishra_08.pdf

Pedagogical Approaches and Blending with Technology

Pedagogy is teaching method, the principles and methods of instruction  According " (Dunkin, 1987, p. 319) in Boer (2004), pedagogical approach is the knowledge and skills that practitioners of the profession of teaching employ in performing their duties of facilitating desired learning in others. There are lots of methods of pedagogical approach teachers can use in their teaching/learning process. Among these interactive groups discussion, experiential learning, problem-based, project-based, task-oriented, ccollaborative learning, reflective learning and discovery learning are few to mention. However, the process of educating students is changing with these approaches, because the nature and interest of students is changing (Boer, 2004). Therefore, there is a need for a new approach of using these pedagogical approaches through technology: Blending pedagogy with technology. It is introducing technology in education for reshaping of teaching and pedagogical approach. Blended learning describes technology facilitated learning that retains a strong and deliberate role for the teacher in the learning process. Blended learning appears to provide strong supports for instructors looking to create learning settings based on strong learner-centred modes of delivery (Oliver, Herrington & Reeves, 2005) in Oliver (2005). Such approaches provide instructors with a raft of affordances and opportunities for creating engaging and supportive settings. The following are few examples of pedagogical approaches and how technology is used to foster the stretching the mold educational delivery system in teaching learning process:

 i)                    Problem based learning

The underlying principles of problem based learning are cognitivism and social constructivism. “Cognitivism means that Problem-based Learning is an active mental process of accessing prior knowledge, making connections between old and new concepts and using the elaboration of relationships to engage in theory construction”(Barret, 2005). In problem based learning students collaborate in small tutored groups (5-8 students) in order to find a solution for tailored, interdisciplinary tasks/problems. The students are monitored and group work is evaluated. The contribution of each is observed by the tutor/coach.

    Blending Problem based learning with technology

According to Donnelly (2005) audio-video resources used to stimulate learners’ prior knowledge or Introduce the project or problem or provide key resources part-way through a project or problem to sustain interest. Discussion Can be asynchronous or synchronous before or after each face-to-face group meeting and can take the form of an online debate presenting polemical stances on a subject or a reasoned argument with supporting evidence. Finally Encourage completion of a web log or online reflective journal/diary/log to support

learning for the duration of the project/problem (Donnelly, 2005). E-learning can also contribute to Problem-based Learning by providing a highly authentic environment and access to resources, modeling and expertise to help learners solve problems

ii)                  Collaborative Learning

It is a pedagogical approach on which groups of learners work together in order to complete  a task which involves question and answers (Boer, 2004). Collaborative learning activities vary

widely, but most center on students’ exploration or application of the course material, not

simply the teacher’s presentation or explication of it. The teacher play as role of facilitator in the teaching learning process. Collaborative learning represents a significant shift from the typical teacher-centered or lecture-centered to student centered methodology.

Blending collaborative learning with technology

The use of email, computer conferencing, web databases, online group discussions and audio

and video conferencing significantly increase the extent and ease of interaction amongst all participants. In these case the students will work collaboratively while discussion, and conferencing.

iii)                Reflective Learning

Reflective learning is defined as ‘an intentional process, where social context and experience are acknowledged, in which learners are active individuals, wholly present, engaging with others, and open to challenge’ (Brockbank et al., 2002) in  Donnelly (2005). In these students are triggered to reflect on the given issue. The teacher facilities the learning process through supporting may be issue on which students could reflect.

Blending Reflective Learning with Technology

The technological approach on which Petra uses in teaching this course could be an example of blending reflective learning through technology. In Web logs (blogs) offer a new and powerful toolkit for the support of reflective collaborative and individual learning that adheres to the patterns of contemporary information-intensive work and learning outside of formal educational settings (Downes, 2004). Blogging encourages students to reflect and reflection is often a key element in the learning process. Depending on what you call the blog, you can encourage students to reflect and record many different impressions and ideas as a learning activity. Many teachers use blogs to encourage learners to be reflective about their learning.

iv)                Discovery Learning

Discovery learning is an inquiry-based, constructivist learning theory that takes place in problem solving situations where the learner draws on his or her own past experience and existing knowledge to discover facts and relationships and new truths to be learned (Hammer, 1997). Students interact with the world by exploring and manipulating objects, wrestling with questions and controversies, or performing experiments.

Blending Discover Learning with Technology

In this approach the learner is motivated to draw conclusions through discovering past and existing knowledge by him/her self. To do this web searching is one way of  blending the approach with technology. The student will be motivated to search webs to come to self refection and conclusion (Boear, 2004).

v)                  Project Bases learning

Project-based learning is a dynamic approach to teaching in which students explore real-world problems and challenges. With this type of active and engaged learning, students are inspired to obtain a deeper knowledge of the subjects they're studying. It provides complex tasks based on challenging questions or problems that involve the students' problem solving, decision making, investigative skills, and reflection that include teacher facilitation, but not direction. Project Based Learning is focused on questions that drive students to encounter the central concepts and principles of a subject hands-on.

Blending Project Based Learning with Technology

Project based learning could be practices through preparing a learning environment on which students can accomplish a certain task through passing different stages/activities. I can take as good example Stochasmos Learning Environment on the following website http://www.stochasmos.org/students the fog case. It demands from student to do a lot of activities for finding ways to eliminate fog in selected spots, suitable for the landing of medical helicopters, in the plain of Thessaly. In this I think we can say that technology is used to project based learning.

Generally, we have to bear in mind that technology can provide option in satisfying learners need (stretching the mold) since pedagogical approaches are not technology driven. Therefore, teachers should show an effort in blending pedagogical approaches to benefit from the advantage of technology in boosting learning.

Issue: We are trying to blend technology in different pedagogical approach for stretching the mold. Hence which the push factor, is it due to the push from technology or the push from learners?

References

Barrett, T. (2005). Understanding problem-based learning. In T. Barrett, I.Mac Labhrainn, &
H. Fallon (Eds.), Handbook of enquiry & problem-based learning (pp. 13-25). Galway, Ireland: CELT. Retrieved October 02, 2010, from http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-2/chapter2.pdf,

Boer, W.F. de (2004). Flexibility support for a changing university. Doctoral dissertation. Faculty of Educational Science and Technology, Univeristy of Twente. Enschede, NL: Twente University Press.

Donnelly, R. (2005). Using Technology to Support Project and Problem Based Learning. In T. Barrett, I.Mac Labhrainn, & H. Fallon (Eds.), Handbook of enquiry & problem-based learning (pp. 13-25). Galway, Ireland: CELT. Retrieved October 02, 2010, from http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-2/chapter16.pdf

Downes, S. (2004). Educational Blogging. National Research Council Canada. Moncton, New Brunswick. Retrieved on October 03, 2010 at http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0450.pdf

Hammer D. (1997). Discovery Learning and Discovery Teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15 (4), 485-529. Tufts University, Medford. Retrieved on October 02, 2010 at http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~davidham/discteach.pdf

Oliver r. (  2005  ).  Using blended learning approaches to enhance teaching and learning outcomes in higher education. Edith Cowan University, Australia. Retrieved on October 05, 2010 at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88.8465&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Reeves, T. C. (1994). Evaluating What Really Matters In Computer-Based Education. In: M. Wild & D. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), Computer Education: New perspectives, pp. 219-246.